15 Mo.App. 192 (Mo.App. 1884), Remmler v. Shenuit

Citation:15 Mo.App. 192
Opinion Judge:BAKEWELL, J.
Party Name:JOHN B. REMMLER ET AL., Respondents, v. FRANZ SHENUIT, Appellant.
Attorney:LOUIS GOTTSHALK, for the appellant: JOHN F. WIELANDY and T. H. PEABODY, for the respondents.
Case Date:February 12, 1884
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 192

15 Mo.App. 192 (Mo.App. 1884)

JOHN B. REMMLER ET AL., Respondents,



Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

February 12, 1884

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, BARCLAY, J.

Reversed and remanded.

LOUIS GOTTSHALK, for the appellant: This being an action for assault, it abates on the death of defendant.--Rev. Stats. 1879, sects. 96 and 97; Stanley v. Vogel, 9 Mo.App. 98. And even after judgment and during appeal.-- Taney v. Edwards, 27 Tex. 224. The instruction given by the court on its own motion was erroneous, because it referred the jury to the pleadings, to ascertain the issues.-- Darsler v. Wixley, 32 Mo. 498; Mo. Coal Co. v. H. & St. J. R. Co., 35 Mo. 84; Corker v. Corker, 2 Mo.App. 458; Edelman v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 3 Mo.App. 505.

JOHN F. WIELANDY and T. H. PEABODY, for the respondents.



This is an action by husband and wife for damages for an indecent assault alleged to have been committed by defendant upon Mary Remmler, the wife of her co-plaintiff The petition alleges that, on a day named, defendant used obscene language to the plaintiff, Mary, solicited her to have sexual commerce with him, and, in the presence of her infant children, struck her, and with violence, attempted to drag her to a bed and to effect the purpose above named.

The answer was a general denial. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,000. A motion for new trial was sustained, unless plaintiff would remit $1,000 A remittitur for this sum was entered, and the motion for new tr al was overruled.

The plaintiff Mary testified that on a day in June, 1882, whilst her husband was absent from the city, defendant came to the house one morning to collect rent. Plaintiffs, at the time, resided in the house in question, which was owned by, and rented from, defendant. It was a one-story building with two rooms connected by a door, and with porches front and back, and a kitchen. Defendant solicited the witness, as alleged in the petition, and indecently assaulted her, following her from room to room, catching her in his arms, kissing her, and handling her person and her clothes in an indecent way. She did not cry out, because she did not wish to injure her good name. But she refused and resisted him, and endeavored to get rid of him. The defendant continued to annoy her from time to...

To continue reading